England furious at Anderson charge

Nick Hoult

James Anderson is facing a potential four-Test ban when he becomes the first England cricketer to go before an International Cricket Council judicial commission after being accused of pushing India all-rounder Ravindra Jadeja during the first Test at Trent Bridge.

The atmosphere between the two sides will be extremely tense in the second Test at Lord's this week after it emerged on Monday that the Indian team had bypassed the match officials and lodged a complaint directly with the ICC, without their head coach, Duncan Fletcher, having any involvement. It is understood that he tried to play the role of peacemaker.

Happier times: England's James Anderson celebrates the wicket of India's Ravindra Jadeja during the drawn first Test at Trent Bridge.

England believe India are using what they see as a very minor incident to remove their senior bowler from the series and undermine them during a contest between two closely matched sides. There is also a suspicion that India would not have reported the offence if it had involved a junior member of the England side.

The England players were shocked to be told the incident had been reported to the ICC and feel it is being pushed by senior figures within the Indian team, who have complained that England have got away with aggressive behaviour for too long.

The England and Wales Cricket Board is now pondering its next move. It has said it will issue a complaint against Jadeja but is wary of falling into a trap by lodging a claim of a level-three offence in case it is seen as an admission that a physical confrontation took place.

The England management will now try to calm tempers. Relations between the two teams have been fractured by the incident but Peter Moores, the head coach, is keen to ensure his players focus on their cricket and do not get dragged into further confrontations.

Advertisement

The ICC statement said that the incident took place as the players left the field at lunch on the second day on Thursday. In the over before the interval Anderson had an appeal for a catch behind off Jadeja turned down. A verbal confrontation on the field followed and this continued when the players went in for lunch.

The Daily Telegraph understands the pair exchanged insults as the two teams entered the narrow corridor in the Trent Bridge pavilion. Jadeja turned around to confront Anderson, who pushed him away and told him to go to his own dressing room. It is understood that the Indian construed this as Anderson threatening to continue the physical confrontation in the dressing room. This will be denied by the England players.

India are believed to have listed at least three witnesses, including two of the squad not playing in the match, and one member of the backroom staff. All the England players have been asked if they saw anything. Three or four have given statements confirming they witnessed the incident but that there was no physical confrontation.

The ECB has already taken statements from pavilion stewards at Trent Bridge but has found no evidence of an incident taking place. The umpires would not have entered the pavilion with the players as their dressing room is underneath the stand, so they were probably unaware of anything untoward.

Negotiations at board level failed to smooth over the problem and it is understood senior officials at both the ECB and Board of Control for Cricket in India are furious the row has reached this stage. They will tell the teams such matters should be reported by the match officials rather than players telling tales on each other.

Anderson now faces the maximum ban of four Tests if found guilty. The ICC's code of conduct states a tribunal has to be convened within 14 days of the charge being laid, so he could be banned before the third Test at the Ageas Bowl starting on July 27.

But the compact nature of this series could be cited as an exceptional circumstance, pushing the hearing back.

"Anderson has been charged for allegedly abusing and pushing Ravindra Jadeja immediately after they left the field for lunch on Thursday," the ICC said in a statement. "It is alleged that this was a continuation of a verbal altercation between Anderson and Jadeja as they were walking from the field. Level three charges are referred to a judicial commissioner for adjudication. The ICC will appoint a judicial commissioner who will hold a hearing as soon as reasonably practicable. These details will be announced in due course."

High-level talks were going on all day yesterday as the two teams prepared in the nets at Lord's for the start tomorrow of the second Test and the ECB eventually reacted by issuing its own statement.

"The England and Wales Cricket Board has today reacted with surprise that the India team has made allegations against James Anderson under level three of the ICC Code of Conduct for a minor incident involving Ravindra Jadeja during the first Investec Test match at Trent Bridge. In the light of this the ECB has notified the ICC of its intention to lodge code of conduct breaches against Jadeja. James Anderson categorically denies the accusations made against him and the ECB have pledged their total support for the player should he be charged by [the] ICC."

The board's lawyers were last night finalising the detail of that complaint against Jadeja, which will be levelled today.

The last time the ICC convened a judicial commission for an on-field confrontation was in 2007-08 when India's Harbhajan Singh was accused of racially abusing Andrew Symonds during a Test match in Sydney. Harbhajan was found guilty and banned for three Tests, but was cleared on appeal.

The ECB will argue the level of charge outweighs the seriousness of the offence. When Michael Clarke was caught on stump microphone threatening to break Anderson's arm during last year's Ashes Test in Brisbane, he was charged only with a level-one offence and the ECB is likely to argue Anderson should face the same charge. This evidence in this case looks set to be based on the contrasting witness statements from both teams and corroborating either view will be tough for the commission to manage with any confidence, making a compromise on the level of offence a likely outcome.